The real question is- What makes a parent capable of killing their kids for reasons that are not based in objective reality? and who does the actual killing anyway?

The conventional feminist interpretation of female infanticide goes something like this.. Eevviill patriarchy victimizes poor women driving them to kill their girl children- either before or after birth. There are however a few problems with this idea-

1. Female infanticide is uncommon or nonexistent in non-asian societies. Indeed societies spanning a range or races, ethnicities and cultures from West and East Europeans, pre- and post-1492 Americans, African cultures and pretty much everyone except Asians are not into systematic female infanticide.

2. Every single human cultures require women for reasons other than breeding- specifically to work in, around and outside the house. Therefore the idea that Asian cultures perceive women as less valuable than men based on their ability to work does not make sense as women in those societies do work inside and outside the home.

3. Asian societies are not patriarchal for the simple reason that Asian men (Chinese, Indian, Japanese etc) are dickless wonders and mama boys. There.. I said it. The partiarchy explanation for female infanticide would be viable if Asian men were not feminized drones who live to make money for their super greedy and materialistic wives.

This brings us to the next question- Does a man care about the gender of his children as long as they are his? and would he kill his own children for no reason other than their gender?

The simple answer to that question is that men don’t have strong gender preferences for their kids- irrespective of race, culture or ethnicity. The average guy (black, white, indian, chinese) could care less if a baby was a boy or girl, as long as he was the father. Men are, if anything, more protective towards their daughters than their sons. Therefore the whole idea that poor, brainwashed and pressured women kill their girl children because strong masculine men disapprove of them is laughable- at best.

So where does that leave us? If strong patriarchal masculinity and male preferences cannot rationally explain female infanticide in Asian countries, what else can? Have you noticed something else linking Asian countries which used, or continue, to practice female infanticide? Every Asian country with a female infanticide problem is full of supremely greedy, materialistic and superficial women. Daughters (unlike sons) are competition for the attention, resources and status of their mother and grandmothers.

A more rational, though tasteless, explanation for female infanticide is that greedy, materialistic and status conscious Asian women see a male-heavy gender offspring ratio as beneficial to them- even if that means killing their competition.. I mean daughters.

The best part of this scheme is that their effeminate drones (Asian men) can be blamed for creating an environment of “patriarchal oppression” which makes impressionable naive women murder their own daughters and grand-daughters. Face it.. defending your murderous actions through the defense of weak will sound better than the Nuremberg defense.

“I could not agree more with a Delhi High Court judge who observed that laws were made to protect hundreds of women tortured and killed for dowry every year but have become a tool for urban middle or upper-middle class women looking to make a quick buck through divorce.”

Webe, dowries tie in because if you have girls then you will be expected to shell out big bucks and products like motor vehicles to your future son-in-law family as dowry. Therefore having a girl is expensive but if you have a sons, you’ll be sitting pretty with the dowry you’ll get from your future daugther-in-laws.

The root cause of this problem is India’s obsession with family. Its not healthy. Parents expect their sons to live with them forever, even after marriage, and they arrange a marriage for him to a girl who’s parents can pay a hefty dowry price. Even after giving them dowry the new bride, daughter-in-law is expected to work as an unpaid slave in their house! She doesn’t even get her own house alone with her husband!

y’know diablo, when your not trying to feel superior to other guys because you spend half your paycheck on prostitutes or talking about shooting people with your quarter inch pee shooter, you write really good articles….

I have always wondered why Feminist bigots like dave futrelle, amanda marcotte and hugo schwyzer never write about female infantacide or things like the Caylee Anthony case… It seems like they only care about the “right” women and maintaining/increasing female privilege while mocking male suffering….

Females are not valued. Families will either keep having babies until they have a boy and then stop OR pressure will be put upon the bahu (daughter-in-law) from her in-laws to abort.

What do the in-laws have to do with it you ask?

She lives with them. Yeah you heard me right. Brides are expected to MOVE IN WITH THEIR IN LAWS and live as their slave til the day she days.

Indian men are mamas boys, you got that right, but why?

Because they never individuate. Indian males are expected to live at home with their parents forever. They don’t even move out after getting married but bring the bride to live in the same house!

Oh this must be for economic purposes, you might state.

Then why do Bollywood stars themselves perpetuate this nonsense?

Once females are valued, Indian boys are allowed to individuate, man up and move the hell out of their parents home and carve a life of their own like a goddang adult, and then live with his wife or girlfriend in their own private home SEPERATE FROM IN-LAWS —- then you will see the sex ratios balancing in India.

Till then – Indian men and women both are slaves to their parents and in-laws even into their old age and will even abort their own children at their behest.

You have lost all credibility with this post. If you think China is not a patriarchal society, then you have no clue about what is going on. Feminism plays a role, but definitely not to the extent of “dickless wonders.”
____

Islam forbids abortion, whereas Hinduism and Buddhism take a neutral stance. And Islam allows for polygamy, so females are valued in that respect.

P Ray

August 3, 2014 at 10:07 am

@Shibboleth: You do know that regardless of what Islam thinks, WOMEN WILL DO AS THEY CAN, EVEN WITH ABORTION?
Islam allows polygamy, but it’s amazingly obvious …
that it’s:
– only between 1 man and multiple women (and not many men and 1 woman)
– the guy happens to be loaded or in some way distinguished in his society.

So…
that’s no different from the alpha slayer and his f*ckbuddies,
or a rock star and his groupies.

Diablo is being completely disingenous here folks. He knows damn well women in India have no autonomy. They go to live with their in-laws for christ sake. If an Indian male never mans up and becomes an independently living, autonomous adult, how likely is it that the Indian female does? Indian men live with their parents their entire lives and do whatever they say. When they get married they bring their wives home to live in the same house as those parents and then SHE is also expected to whatever they say.

Blaming female infanticide or sex selective abortions on Indian wives, as if they have any say in the matter over their own bodies at all, is completely ridiculous.

Wrong Answer!!! Korea was much like India in the respect that women had much more control internally, inside the house, than Westerners were initially led to believe. Im not saying the man wasn’t the head of the household, but he often acquiesced to his wife. If a man wanted to go drinking and whoring with his friends or had to do so with his work colleagues, in order to get the wife to reduce her nagging, he would acquiesce on a lot. Asian women are master manipulators and at baffling men, and are much better at it than other women in the world particularly Western women. The mother-in-law rules the daughter-in-law with a domineering hand. The daughter-in-law will do the same when she becomes a mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law. Even if the son failed to marry, he still is the protector and provider for his mother and father even though the father needs less provision and protection than the mother in old age. The daughter is not the protector and provider, and she will leave with or without a dowry.

Culture Indian non-brahmin Lady

January 23, 2012 at 10:43 am

Doclove, precisely why I say “Indian in-laws should be outlawed!”

When Indian boys are allowed to become men and individuate, move OUT of the family home and live with their girlfriends or wives in a seperate space from his parents, the aborting of female fetuses will drop.

Note that the majority of such abortions take place in the states of Haryana and Punjab where joint family living and the pedastalization of males is at it its highest.

On the other accusation that Indian men are momma’s boys, it is true generally. But the only way old people can get support is through their family. That is going to happen, without placing undue burden on others, is having the son support the parents during their old age. You don’t want State to support old (social security), we all know how its bankrupting USA.

In case of India, not all jathis (castes) are patriarchal. There are some which are matriarchal as well.

As for female infanticide, it gained wide acceptance only after 70s, as Western nations, pushed for population control. So, people decided to abort females, in the hope of begetting a boy as an insurance for old age. Now the same west is expressing outrage over female infanticide.

I’ve been making the same point myself for quite a few years, wiith zero acceptance. Yet it’s women who want to reduce female births in order to keep the number of females down and support the price of their own ageing pussies. I have absolutely no doubt about it. The other explantions (farmer families want male offspring to work on the farm, bla-bla-bla) are a smoke screen.

‘Too tall, too fat, and too dark’: One woman’s ‘soul crushing’ discovery that she ‘wasn’t beautiful enough’ to live in South Korea
The Daily Mail

jlee, Seoul, South Korea, 4/6/2013 14:39

“Don’t blame Korean men. We’re also sick of our women obsessed with plastic surgery. People love beautiful women everywhere. But how come Korean women have become like that? Because Korean men are selfish and patriarchal? That’s not true. Because Korean women in Korea are so dependent and passive. Unlike Korean men, they don’t have to serve the military service, they have tens of women’s universities, they even have Ministry of Women, menstrual leave, maternity leave, quota system for female job seekers, female only libraries, other women-only facilities and etc. They have tons of social support. HOWEVER, only 6% female students go to engineering college and 90% want to have a office job or secured public office job. They limit their career by themselves because they are women! So what they would do? Get plastic surgeries and meet a man who has a high-paying job then live like a Cinderella! For Korean women, having a successful husband is higher priority than become a successful woman.”